+1

I wasn't watching. How did this come up? I can't imagine how the question was relevant. But at the same time, I can't imagine being unable to say, "yeah, it's pretty ****ing real."

She knows the only opinions that matter are the opinions of the 51 GOP senators that will vote yes. Anything to jeopardize that is bad for her career.

Probably can't imagine being nominated for the supreme Court either. Shrug

Starting at 13:27

That really isn’t that bad. If I were up for confirmation by a Republican controlled Senate I’d have probably given similarly evasive answers.

In the late 1970's, many scientists were warning us about the coming Ice Age.

A few years later, Global Warming was all the rage.

Now, the Great Imminent Threat is Climate Change.

Maybe in five years, it will be time for The Climate Isn't Changing Enough brigade to be heard with their "models."

ACB is waiting for a CASE OR CONTROVERSEE between THE CLIMATE AND BIG BIZNESS before she weighs in on the laws of thermodynamics with which she is not informed upon enough to opine in the abstract.

That's because it'd require a constitutional amendment. Thats why we should be looking for solutions that don't require amendments. Packing the courts and limiting jurisdiction are two choices.

Yes, so many people wanna spin the constitution as some semi-divinely inspired document. It's not. Some politicians trying to scrabble together a country came up with some some compromises to keep everyone at the table.

1) the first step is admitting you have a problem. if more people are unafraid to say "you know, the constitution we have may not be the best" aloud it'll be possible to make progress.

2) exactly. the courts took this power to invalidate federal laws upon themselves. The legislature can limit their jurisdiction. As I've always shown, it's not at all incompatible with a functioning democracy.

Climate change=global warming. People use the former nomenclature because while the earth will warm on average, the changes are not uniform. Some places may even become colder.

there was NEVER a scientific consensus about a coming ice age. Ever.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of problems with the constitution.
But it's not easily changed and it's not necessary to change it to keep the court from legislating from the bench.

I feel it's easier and quicker to lean on our representatives. Although even that isn't easy or quick.

we need you to decipher what you said...
Are you saying that the climate hasnt changes since the 1970 and all the scientific evidences are wrong ?

Not sure how this is relevant ? 1/2 the questions had nothing to do with being a supreme court judge.

Do you hate puppies?

Yeah, can't wait until she has to walk back her "sexual preference" statement...

Apparently supreme court nominees aren’t allowed to have an opinion on anything.

It’s because climate change isn’t an opinion , it’s freakn reality and a fact ....

The climate does indeed change over time. The question is to what extent it is because of human activity (if any).

Yes, of course. With so many scientifically illiterate representatives in our government it turns into “unsettled science” or “what extent humans are causing it”.
One problem is the process and another is we can’t agree on what facts are ffs.

If a case comes before the Supreme Court dealing with climate change her acceptance of the scientific consensus would indeed matter. Basically if a problem is severe enough the courts give more leeway for the government to do things they would normally not allow. Do a search for "Supreme Court tests" and you'll find what I'm talking about. basically if a judge doesn't believe the climate crisis is real it's less likely she'll find that climate legislation has a "rational basis", or that the government has a "compelling interest" in stopping in.

It's not a question among people who study it. It's only a question among people who stand to lose a lot of money if it's treated as a serious problem.

You are correct that the scientific consensus is that climate change is real. And it was real before there were any scientists to investigate the phenomena. And climate change will be real 100 years from now. And it will be real 1000 years from now, etc etc.

The question is, what, if anything, can or should be done about it.

Beware the Crisis Industrial Complex.

Big $$$ from government to be grabbed to solve a "crisis."

Edit: Notice how a "crisis" always takes power and freedom away from ordinary folks, and gives more power to the government?

How's the War on Terror and the War on Drugs working out?

Edit: And let's not forget the War on Poverty. How's that going after spending billions and billions of dollars to eradicate it?

Agh yesterdays great questions

Corey Booker " You condemn white supremacy correct? "

The Senator I think from Hawaii " You have never been convicted of sexual assault"?
and " You have never settled a case for sexual assault "

The biggest program of the War on Poverty was Medicare. Here are poverty rates for seniors:



Notice the big drop in poverty rates for seniors following the passage of government health insurance for seniors. The idea that government programs meant to address poverty are failures because poverty hasn't been eradicated is ridiculous.

Well it might be true in the US but it ain’t anywhere else in the world .

And you are pro life right ?
Why am I not surprise I see another paradox ....